All requests for retrial are dismissed.

The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (Plaintiffs for retrial).

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

1. Article 7(1) of the Court Organization Act provides that the judgment authority of the Supreme Court shall be held by a panel of not less than 2/3 of all Justices, but it shall be held by a panel of not less than three Justices unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, and a panel of not less than three Justices may first be held by a panel only when the opinion is delivered, and Article 7(1)3 of the same Act provides that "where it is acknowledged that there is a need to modify the opinion on the interpretation and application of the Constitution, law, order or rule expressed in the previous Supreme Court." Thus, even though the opinion on the interpretation and application of the law, etc. expressed in the judgment subject to a retrial changed the opinion expressed in the Supreme Court decision previously rendered, if the judgment was rendered by a panel of less than two thirds of all Justices, it constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure

(2) On July 21, 2011, the purport of the grounds for the request for a retrial asserted by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is as follows: (a) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da19054 Decided May 17, 2007; (b) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30676, 30683 Decided October 28, 201; and (c) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da9301 Decided October 15, 2009; and (c) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da9301 Decided October 15, 2009; and (d) the judgment subject to a retrial is a cause for a retrial under Article 45(1)1(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment subject to a retrial was rendered by a Justice comprised of less than two-thirds of all Justices.

The judgment subject to a review was as follows.

(1) The previous Private School Act before it was amended by Act No. 7802, Dec. 29, 2005

(c).